Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
The timberfootprint of the G8and ChinaMaking the case for greenprocurement by government
Paul Toyne, Cliona O’Brien and Rod NelsonJune 2002
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The authors should like to thank the following:Jennifer Biringer, Eva Borzillo, Bruce Cabarle, Zhu Chunquan, Darron Collins, ArnoldoContreras-Hermosilla, Philippe Delétain, Peter Denton, Chris Elliott, Michael Evers, MichaelGarforth, Jim Harkness, Tom Hu Tao, Aki Inoguchi, Edoardo Isnenghi, Steven Johnson,Anatoly Kotlobay, Per Larsson, Christa Licher, Olga Lopina, Ginny Ng, Michael Martin,Randall Nelson, Suzy Nelson-Pollard, Emmanuelle Neyroumande, Ruth Nussbaum, DuncanPollard, Steven Price, Andrey Ptichnikov, Margaret Rainey, Beatrix Richards, Ugis Rotbergs,Janis Rozitis, Rachel Shotton, Wynet Smith, Justin Stead, Justin Swarbrick, Rod Taylor,Christian Thompson, Sarah Thorpe and Ellen von Zitzewitz. Special thanks to James Hewittfor his help in collecting and analysing the trade data.
The material and the geographical designations in this report do not imply the expressionof any opinion whatsoever on the part of WWF concerning the legal status of any country,territory, or area, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries.
Version 2. Republished June 2002.
WWF InternationalAvenue du Mont-Blanc1196 GlandSwitzerland
Tel: +41 22 364 9111Fax: +41 22 364 6040www.panda.org
Contents
Executive summary 5
1. Background 10
2. Overview of trade flows of timber and wood-based products in the G8 and China 12
3. Assessment of the G8 and China’s public procurement 19
4. What are governments doing to procure responsibly? 21
5. Discussion 26
6. Recommendations 29
7. Appendices 31
8. Endnotes 38
5
Executive summary
Illegal logging and the trade in illegal timber and wood-based products is known to occur inmore than 70 countries. It is a global issue that involves both developing and developednations.
Illegal logging occurs when timber is harvested, transported, processed, bought or sold inviolation or circumvention of national or sub-national laws. The World Bank estimates thatthe loss of revenue to governments is US$5 billion annually, with a further US$10 billion lostto the economies of producing countries. WWF believes that illegal logging and other formsof forest crime are part of a larger problem that includes poor forest governance andincreasing levels of corruption. Poor governance often leads to increased access to, and theunsustainable utilisation of, forests as well as to an increase in activities such as illegalmining, bushmeat hunting, settlement and conversion of land for agriculture. Loss of forestresources directly affects the livelihoods of 90 per cent of the 1.2 billion people in thedeveloping world who live in extreme poverty.
In 1998, the G8 countries (Canada, France, Germany, Japan, Italy, Russia, the UK and theUS) formally recognised that “illegal logging robs national and sub-national governments,forest owners and local communities of significant revenues and benefits, damages forestecosystems, distorts timber markets and forest resource assessments, and acts as adisincentive to sustainable forest management”. A range of actions was agreed upon,including an assessment of their internal measures such as procurement policies, to controlillegal logging and the international trade in illegally harvested timber.
This report highlights trade-flows between the countries of the G8 and China, and thosecountries with known problems of illegal activities in the forest sector. It also examinescurrent public procurement policies of the G8 countries and China, and recommendsmeasures that their governments should take to combat the importation of illegal timber andwood-based products for public procurement. China is included in this analysis due to itssignificantly increasing consumption of timber and wood-based products in recent years.
An assessment of current public procurement by the countries of the G8 and ChinaThe countries of the G8 and China import - for national consumption or processing prior tore-export - two thirds (approximately 609 million cubic metres Round Wood Equivalent) ofthe timber, pulp, paper and wooden furniture that is traded globally every year. It is estimatedthat on average, 18 per cent of this trade is to fulfil government procurement demands, worthapproximately US$23 billion a year. By comparison, less than 1 per cent (approximately ninemillion cubic metres) of internationally-traded timber is believed to be certified as comingfrom well-managed forests.
Procurement by the various G8 countries and China impacts upon different regions orcountries depending on where their main supplies come from. For instance, the US importspredominantly from Canada, Latin America and East Asia; Japan primarily from NorthAmerica, Russia and parts of Asia and Oceania; northern EU member states from Europe;southern EU member states from Europe and Africa; and China from Asia, Oceania, Africaand Europe. Many producing countries have one or more of the following in common: highlevels of foreign debt, poor governance, high levels of poverty, unsustainable forest
6
management, and the loss of High Conservation Value Forests. These factors, among others,contribute to illegal and unsustainable trade.
Because the use of chain of custody systems (allowing the flow of timber and wood-basedproducts from the forest floor to the final consumer to be monitored) is not widespread, andbecause governments do not monitor the source or impact of their timber procurement, it isdifficult to directly link their timber procurement to specific cases of illegal logging.However, documentation shows that illegal logging occurs in many countries supplying theG8 and China, so up to a third of the timber and wood-based products procured by theirgovernments may have been sourced or traded in illegally.
CanadaCanada is a major producer of timber and wood-based products. However, it also importssome tropical timber products such as veneers, and furniture from tropical countries whereillegal logging is prevalent.
ChinaThe great majority of China’s timber imports originate from Indonesia, Malaysia, and Russia.China’s imports include illegally logged timber from Russia (50 per cent of all export trade inthe Russian Far East is illegal), Burma, Cameroon, Gabon, Indonesia, Liberia, Papua NewGuinea and Thailand. Thailand in turn imports illegal timber from neighbouring Burma,Cambodia and Laos for export.
FranceThe French government imports an estimated US$2.8 billion of timber and wood productsevery year. France is the largest European and the second largest global importer of tropicaltimber from Africa. Its main supplying countries in Africa are Cameroon, Equatorial Guinea,Gabon, Ivory Coast and Liberia - all known to export illegal timber. France also importswooden furniture from Brazil, where 80 per cent of logging in the Amazon is thought to beillegal.
GermanyThe German government is estimated to be the third largest importer (by volume) of timberand wood-based products in the G8 and China. It imports 14 per cent of Russia’s exports ofpulp and paper (it is estimated that 25 per cent of timber from north-west Russia, where mostof this pulp originates, is illegal). It also imports 16 per cent of Ghana’s timber exports. Inaddition, Germany imports from Brazil and Latvia, both of which have documentedwidespread illegal logging.
ItalyItaly imports more than 10 million cubic metres of timber and wood products. Italy is theworld’s leading exporter of wooden furniture. Whereas the raw material for a proportion ofthese exports originates from forests within the EU, more than 10 per cent originates fromcentral Africa. Cameroon supplies 40 per cent of the tropical timber that Italy imports - halfof these exports are considered to be illegal.
JapanOf those governments examined here, Japan is estimated to procure the second-largestamount (by volume) of timber and wood-based products. It is one of the world’s principal
7
importers of timber, with an increasing amount of imported logs coming from the Russian FarEast. Japan is the largest importer of wood chips and it also imports substantial quantities ofpulp and paper. In addition, it is a major export market for timber and wood products fromIndonesia, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, Russia and Thailand - all countries withdocumented illegal logging and related trade.
Russian FederationRussia is a major producing country. Its exports, primarily logs, are mainly due to increaseddemand from China and Finland - both of which are also significant exporting countries.While the demand from the European market for Russian timber is stable, the countries of theAsia-Pacific region (particularly China, Japan and Korea) demonstrate rapid growth inconsumption. Exports to China (about 15 per cent) have grown over the past three years,already reaching levels that were not expected until 2010. Thirty-five per cent of exports innorth-west Russia are thought to be illegal, rising to 50 per cent in the Russian Far East.Some 25 per cent of Russia’s exports go to EU countries, including the UK which is the fifth-largest EU importer of timber and timber products from Russia.
United KingdomThe United Kingdom is a major importer of timber and paper and depends on imports forroughly 85 per cent of its consumption. The government procures an estimated US$2.5billion of timber and wood products every year. Sawn wood comprises the great majority ofthe UK’s timber imports. Brazil and Indonesia supply about a third of the UK’s tropicaltimber supply, while Malaysia supplies much of the remainder. Fifteen per cent of Brazil’sand 13 per cent of Vietnam’s wooden furniture exports go to the UK. The UK’s tropicaltimber imports from central Africa derive primarily from Cameroon. Within Europe, 34 percent of Latvia’s timber exports are imported by the UK, and unofficial estimates of illegallogging are much higher than the 2-3 per cent suggested by officials. Ten per cent ofEstonia’s timber is exported to the UK, 50 per cent of which is considered illegal.
United StatesThe US government procures at least US$7 billion of timber and wood products every year,and of the governments examined in this report, it is estimated to procure the largest amount(by volume and value) of timber and wood-based products. Canada supplies the greatmajority of the US’s imports of pulp and paper, and timber (mainly sawn wood, and to alesser extent fibreboard). China and Canada supply most of the US’s increasing imports ofwooden furniture. China imports timber to make this furniture from countries that are knownto export illegal timber, such as Burma. The US is also a major importer of wooden furniturefrom Brazil, Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand. For Malaysia and Thailand, many rawmaterials are derived illegally from neighbouring countries such as Indonesia, Cambodia andLaos.
Brazil is the second-largest exporter of timber, wood chips, pulp and paper to the US. Big-leaf mahogany (Swietenia macrophylla) - just one of 200 tropical hardwood tree speciesimported into the US - accounts for 57 per cent of US imports of tropical lumber by volumeand 59 per cent by value. The US imports 32 per cent of its big-leaf mahogany from Peru, 90per cent of which is illegal.
Finland is also a large supplier to the US, but it is likely that some of these imports actuallyoriginate in Russia, a country where between 25 and 50 per cent of its export trade is illegal.
8
Russia is also a direct source of imports to the US, in the form of plywood and pulp andpaper.
Public procurement as a means of tackling illegal loggingThe onus to tackle illegal logging is not solely on producing countries, but also on thosecountries that profit by purchasing or trading in illegal timber.
Public procurement is one policy option that will enable the G8 and China to tackle illegallogging. The governments of these countries wield considerable purchasing power, and bysourcing their timber and wood-based products from independently verified legal and well-managed forests, would greatly increase the volume of certified products in trade and,through the supply chain, improve global standards of forest management. Experience hasshown that one of the most effective means of reducing levels of illegal logging is to supportand promote legal logging.
A single procurement policy for each G8 country across all government departments wouldensure that suppliers do not receive mixed signals about the environmental and socialstandards required to secure a government contract. These standards, or their equivalent,would have to be specified clearly in all tenders.
By supporting certification and labelling, governments could, at a stroke, achieve two crucialobjectives: be assured that they were not purchasing illegally harvested logs, and that theirgoods were the products of sustainably managed forestry. In some countries where illegallogging is an issue, certification may be too difficult a goal to attain initially - in which caseimplementing a step by step approach must become a priority. The first step would be toeliminate illegal activity in the forestry sector. Various tools such as producers groups, theSGS certification support programme and the Tropical Forest Trust business to businessagreements are available to assist implementation.
None of the governments of the G8 countries or China are currently implementing aneffective public procurement policy specifying that as a minimum requirement, timber andwood-based products must come from legal sources and from sustainably managed forests.However, some governments are beginning to act and are pursuing different approaches togreen procurement, while others - notably Italy - appear to be doing nothing at all. Forinstance, the UK is currently developing its minimum requirements for procurement, andalong with China, France and Germany, is considering the role of certification and labellingas a means of verification. Based on responses to questionnaires, the Forest StewardshipCouncil (FSC) - an independent certification system - appears to be the standard by which allother systems are currently being assessed. The governments of France, Germany and the UKhave specifically mentioned the FSC or equivalent certification standards with regard toseeking and implementing a green procurement policy as a means of identifying sustainableand legal timber. The UK has also recently entered into a bilateral trade agreement withIndonesia to improve forest law enforcement and governance, and to combat illegal loggingand the international trade in illegally logged timber and wood products.
The Canadian government has stated that it fully supports certification as a tool in thedemonstration of sustainable forest management and is currently considering how this mightfeature in the further development of green procurement checklists. There are indications thatJapan is beginning discussions with Russia and Indonesia on bilateral agreements in support of
9
sustainable forest management initiatives. In the US, despite Environmental Protection Agencyguidelines on how to integrate greener products into purchasing decisions and theimplementation of programmes, adherence to these guidelines cannot be determined due toincomplete reporting and lack of monitoring. However, the US is continuing to investigate thepossibility of green procurement policies and bilateral agreements with producer countries.Efforts are being made by the Russian forestry industry to introduce a system for tracing theorigin of timber, as an element of environmentally-friendly and sustainable forest management.
The G8 and China should not stop trading with countries with poor forest law compliance orwhere laws are either weak or conflicting, but instead work with these governments and theirforest industry to improve the situation. The provision of technical support and aid by the G8would help improve standards of forest management, trade and governance.
The eradication of illegal logging and related trade will be a complex and lengthy processrequiring long-term support from the governments of the G8 and China.
The governments of the G8 and China must:• adopt and implement procurement policies that specify the purchase of timber and wood-
based products from legal and responsibly managed forests. These policies should besupported by a series of actions - including voluntary bilateral trade agreements thatcommit the G8 to aid and technical support - in order to ensure implementation withoutcontributing to the loss of High Conservation Value Forests in producing countries. Itshould be a priority that these agreements are developed, first and foremost, withproducing countries with a record of poor governance, loss of High Conservation ValueForests, and low standards of forest management. Such trade agreements would helpdeliver procurement policies and, as a first step to certification, should cover support forverification of legal compliance based on independently verified chains of custody.
The governments must also:• enter into partnerships with the private sector by supporting the Global Forest and Trade
Network initiative in the development of producer groups in key producing countries.Members of producer groups commit to improving their management of forests andproduction, so that they will produce timber and wood-based products in accordance withFSC standards.
Further collaboration between governments and the private sectorMore detailed recommendations are given in the main report, including specific guidance onimplementing procurement policies through interdepartmental government working groups.These guidelines could equally be applied to the private sector, which would play a crucialrole in helping governments to implement their green procurement policies.
There is an urgent need to reduce illegality and improve forest management standards inmany countries supplying the G8 and China with timber and wood-based products. Thepolitical will generated by the G8 process now needs to be turned into actions: adopting andimplementing procurement policies is one essential action that these governments must take.
10
1. Background
Illegal logging and the trade of illegal timber and wood-based products is a global issue thatinvolves both developing and developed countries. Illegal logging occurs when timber isharvested, transported, processed, bought or sold in violation or circumvention of national orsub-national laws. The World Bank estimates that the loss of revenues due to illegal loggingcosts governments US$5 billion annually, with a further US$10 billion lost to the economiesof producing countries1. However, it not only reduces government revenues, but it alsodestroys the basis of poor people’s livelihoods and, in some cases, even fuels armed conflict2.Loss of forest resources directly affect the livelihoods of 90 per cent of the 1.2 billion peoplein the developing world who live in extreme poverty3.
In May 1998, the G8 (Canada, France, Germany, Japan, Italy, Russia, the UK and the US)formally confirmed that “illegal logging robs national and sub-national governments, forestowners and local communities of significant revenues and benefits, damages forestecosystems, distorts timber markets and forest resource assessments and acts as a disincentiveto sustainable forest management”4. A range of actions was agreed upon, includingassessments of the nature and extent of international trade in illegally harvested timber (Box1). Since then, the extent to which G8 nations are connected to the illegal international tradein timber and wood-based products has been analysed in a number of studies5, 6, 7, 8. Thecommon conclusion is that more can be done by the G8 in terms of implementingcommitments and providing technical support to tackle illegal logging.
Box 1. The G8 Action Programme on Forests: actions on illegal logging
The G8 members agreed to:• encourage assessments and information-sharing on the nature and extent of trade in illegally
harvested timber, in order to develop counter-measures;• implement measures to improve market transparency in the international timber trade;• assess the effectiveness of, and gaps in, their internal measures to control illegal logging and
international trade in illegally harvested timber;• implement their obligations under international agreements aimed at combating bribery and
corruption as they pertain to the timber trade; and• work with other countries and organisations (such as the International Tropical Timber
Organisation) to develop their own capacity to assess the extent of illegal logging and trade inillegally harvested timber and their capacity to develop and implement counter measures.
This report examines current public procurement policies and recommends measures that theG8 and Chinai should take to combat imports of illegal timber and wood-based products. Thereport also focuses on the importation of timber and wood-based products that are required tosatisfy government demand, in order to show how the level of consumption by thesegovernments affects the natural resource base of timber-producing countries. It alsohighlights how much influence these governments wield through their considerablepurchasing power.
i China is included in this analysis because, in recent years, its imports have increased significantly due to a
domestic logging ban and the reduction of import barriers.
11
By specifying environmental, social and legal criteria in public procurementii policies,governments have the power to ensure that negative impacts on forest resources of othercountries, as well as on their own forest resources, are minimised.
Procurement is just one of a number of government policy options that can stimulateimprovements in forest management. The successful control of illegal logging and relatedtrade is likely to require the simultaneous implementation of many policies and strategies incountries that export, process and import forest products - an overview of which has recentlybeen published9.
Box 2: What is Illegal?
Illegal logging and associated trade takes many forms, and occurs at various points along thesupply chain from those who grant concession rights, to producers, to importers. Examples ofillegal practices in the timber industry include the following10:• illegal occupation of forest lands by forest companies;• illegal logging (logging trees that are too small or a protected species; ringing trees so that
they will die and can then be logged; logging in protected or prohibited areas outsideconcession boundaries; logging more than is permitted by the concession permit; obtaininglogging permits through bribes or intimidation);
• illegal transport, trade and timber smuggling;• transfer pricing;• corrupt procurement; and• illegal processing (without a permit; using illegally logged timber; breaking labour laws).
Illegal logging is a complex issue. For instance, one paradox is that many instances involvinglocal people engaged in matters of survival, or in accordance with traditional practices, mayactually be less environmentally damaging than legal, commercial logging. It would be a falseassumption that all forest and trade regulations are effective in ensuring responsiblemanagement of forest resources, and that the rigorous application of forest and trade lawswould solve the problem. Legality does not imply sustainability, but is the first in a series ofsteps towards sustainability, provided that these laws are just, fair and do not conflict withother laws.
One of the main difficulties is being able to differentiate between illegal and legal activities:in many cases conflicting or unjust laws, coupled with a lack of a credible chain of custody,make such differentiation nearly impossible.
ii Public procurement is the acquisition of goods, works, services and other supplies by government departments,
contractors on government business, as well as local authorities and their contractors. Timber and wood-based
products are procured for many purposes, including the following: paper use by central and local government,hospitals, schools etc.; furniture in government offices, schools, hospitals etc; tenders for public works (both
refurbishment and new construction) such as court houses, hospitals, schools, transport infrastructure works and
housing developments.
12
2. Overview of trade flows of timber and wood-based products in the G8 and China
CanadaCanada is a major producer of timber and wood-based products. While the great majority ofits exports of timber, pulpiii, paper and wooden furniture are imported by the US, it alsoexports large volumes of timber, pulp and, to a lesser extent, paper to the rest of the world(Table 1). Canada’s timber exports to the US mainly comprise sawn wood as well asfibreboard. It imports substantial quantities of timber (primarily logs but also sawn wood andwood chips) and paper mostly from the US rather than developing countries. Canada alsoimports some tropical timber products such as veneers and furniture from tropical countries.
ChinaChina’s imports have risen sharply in recent years, partly to offset reduced domesticproduction from forest areas affected by logging bans, and partly because of progressivereductions in tariffs and non-tariff trade barriers brought about by China’s economy openingto international trade in the late 1980s. Although Russia has provided much of the timber tosatisfy this increased demand, supplies from tropical producer countries have also risen: in2000, they still supplied more than half of China’s timber imports. Thus, the great majorityof China’s timber imports originate from countries where there are documented cases ofillegal logging (see Section 7, Appendix I) that often occur in High Conservation ValueForests (HCVFs)iv (Table 2). Logs comprise an increasing majority of China’s imports; theproportion of imported fibreboard is also increasing, but plywood is decreasing.
China is a major importer of pulp and paper and its imports of both are increasing. Indonesiasupplies an increasingly large amount of pulp (Table 3), a substantial proportion of which islikely to derive from natural tropical forest.
China is a major exporter of timber and wooden furniture, and its young export-orientedwooden furniture industry is growing rapidly. As the raw material for these productsoriginates in countries with documented cases of illegal logging and disappearing HCVFs(Table 4), this export trade is at risk. Its timber exports primarily comprise “value-added”products (such as ornaments) and wood chips. China’s paper exports - most of which areimported by Hong Kong and the US - are also growing rapidly, based partly on surpluscapacity and low costs.
FranceFrance is a major importer of paper and, to a lesser extent, timber and pulp. Its imports ofthese products are increasing - indeed, both its imports and exports of timber and pulp areamongthe 10 highest in the world. France is among the top four worldwide importers of paper (themain supplying countries are Belgium, Finland, Germany and Sweden) and the top five
iii Pulp includes virgin fibre only, i.e. excludes pulp made from recycled paper products and from other materials such
as straw.iv As defined by the Forest Stewardship Council: “High Conservation Value Forests are forests with environmental,
biodiversity, landscape or socio-economic values of critical importance”.
13
worldwide exporters of paper (the main importing countries are Belgium, Germany, Italy,Spain and the UK).
France is also the largest European and the second-largest global importer of tropical timberfrom Africa. The main supplying countries are Cameroon, Equatorial Guinea (in 2000),Gabon, Ivory Coast and Liberia (Table 2) - all countries where illegal logging has beendocumented. France also imports wooden furniture from Brazil (Table 4).
GermanyGermany is a major importer of timber, pulp and paper, and its imports of paper areincreasing. It is a major exporter of timber and paper, mainly to other EU countries. Logs andsawn wood account for the great majority of its timber exports. Most of its timber (in theform of sawn wood) and wooden furniture imports come from Europe, particularly Finland,Poland, Romania and Sweden (Table 1, 2 and 4). Germany constitutes 16 per cent of Ghana’stimber export market (Table 2).
ItalyItaly is a major importer of timber, pulp and, increasingly, paper. Sawn wood from Austriacomprises the great majority of Italy’s timber imports.
Italy is one of the world’s leading exporters of wooden furniture. Whereas the raw materialfor some of these exports originates from forests within the EU, some also originates fromcountries with recognised problems of illegal logging, such as those of Central Africa11
(Table 2). Italy comes a close second to France in EU tropical timber procurement fromAfrica: 40 per cent of the tropical timber that Italy imports from the region comes fromCameroon. Italy also exports a substantial and increasing amount of paper. Its exports oftimber are also increasing.
JapanJapan is one of the world’s principal importers of timber (Table 1), with an increasingamount of its imported logs being sourced in the Russian Far East. Japan is the largestimporter of wood chips and it also imports substantial quantities of pulp and, to a lesserextent, paper. Japan and China are the largest importers of tropical timber, but China importsfrom many more countries than Japan. On the basis of declared imports, Japan is thedominant export destination for Indonesia and Malaysia - two of the world’s principalsuppliers of tropical timber. Japan imports a third of China’s timber exports (Table 2). It isalso a major importer of east Asian-manufactured wooden furniture, the raw materials ofwhich are likely to originate from countries where illegal logging is known to be a problem.Meanwhile, Japan exports little timber, pulp or paper.
Russian FederationRussia, a major timber producer, imports relatively small amounts of timber and wood-basedproducts when compared with other members of the G8 and China. Russia’s exports,primarily logs, are increasing (mainly due to increased demand in China, as well as Finland -both of which are also significant exporting countries). The largest timber consumers inRussia are pulp and paper mills located mainly in the north-west of the country. Finland is thelargest importer of Russian timber, with three Finnish companies - StoraEnso, UPMKymmene, and Thomesto - together importing about 35 per cent of Russia’s total timberexports. Prior to 2001, the second-largest purchaser of Russian timber was Japan (about 30
14
per cent – see Table 2). However, in 2001 China’s imports were 50 per cent greater thanJapan’s.
While the European market’s demand for Russian timber is stable, the countries of the Asia-Pacific region demonstrate rapid growth in consumption. The neighbours of the PrimorskiyKrai region - China, Japan, and Korea - have an ever-increasing demand for round wood.Exports to China (about 15 per cent) have grown over the past three years, and have alreadyreached the export volume that was not expected until 201012. Proposed projects to build newroads between Russia and China - for example, through the Altai Mountains - could have alsohave a hugely negative impact on the forests of this region.12
Approximately 25 per cent of Russia’s exports go to EU countries. The UK is the fifth-largestimporter of timber and timber products from Russia13.
Russia’s imports of timber, pulp and paper are negligible in the context of this analysis(Table 1).
United KingdomThe United Kingdom is a major importer of timber and paper, and depends on imports forroughly 85 per cent of its consumption. It also imports a substantial amount of pulp. Sawn woodcomprises the great majority of the UK’s timber imports. Indonesia, Brazil and Malaysia supplymore than half the UK’s tropical timber requirements (Tables 1 and 2). The UK’s tropicaltimber imports from central Africa derive primarily from Cameroon11. The UK’s imports oftropical wooden furniture derive principally from Brazil and Vietnam (Table 4).
The UK exports a substantial quantity of paper. Ireland is its principal market for timberand paper.
United StatesThe US is a major exporter of timber, pulp and paper. Canada supplies the great majority ofthe US’s imports of pulp and paper, and timber (mainly sawn wood and, to a lesser extent,fibre-board) (Table 1). China and Canada supply most of its increasing imports of woodenfurniture. The US also imports wooden furniture from Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand(Table 4).
Brazil is the second-largest exporter of timber, wood chips, pulp and paper to the US (Tables1, 2 and 3). Big-leaf mahogany (Swietenia macrophylla) - just one of 200 tropical hardwoodtree species imported into the US - accounts for 57 per cent of US imports of tropical lumberby volume and 59 per cent by value14. The US imports 45 per cent of its big-leaf mahoganyfrom Brazil, 32 per cent from Peru and 18 per cent from Bolivia15. Ninety per cent of Peru’sbig-leaf mahogany exports to the US are illegal16.
Finland is also a large supplier to the US, but it is likely that some of these imports actuallyoriginate in Russia, a country where a significant part of its trade is illegal12. Plywood panelsare also imported from Malaysia. At least a third of Malaysia's harvest - and therefore itsexports - is thought to be illegal17. Malaysia’s harvest is supplemented by imports fromIndonesia, many of which may also be illegal in origin18. In addition, the Russian Federationis a direct source of imports, in the form of plywood and pulp and paper (Table 3).
15
Table 1: G8 and China imports of timber, wood chip, pulp, paper and wooden furniture during2000 (million cubic metres roundwood equivalent volume).
source
Canada
France
Germ
any
Italy
Japan
Russia
UK
US ΣΣΣ ΣG
8im
ports
China
Total 28 45 75 56 89 2 53 205 552 56
Australia 6.1 6
Austria 1.0 5.5 11.9 1.3 21
Belarus 1.5
Belgium 5.9 2.8 1.5 11
Brazil 1.6 1.2 2.1 1.9 7.7 16 0.9
Canada 2.0 3.6 3.3 16.7 2.8 166 195 4.0
Chile 3.4 1.8 7 0.9
China 5.9 3.7 8
Croatia 1.1
CzechRepublic
2.9
Denmark 1.0
Finland 3.9 10.3 2.1 2.4 0.6 9.2 2.6 31
France 4.5 4.8 2.7 13
Gabon 1.1
Germany 8.4 7.1 5.2 2.1 24 1.7
Hong Kong 1.2
Hungary 1.6
Indonesia 9.5 1.1 3.0 15 9.4
Ireland 1.3
Italy 2.7 2.4 1.2 0.9 8
Japan 1.5
Latvia 1.0 3.7 5
Malaysia 8.5 1.9 11 4.9
Mexico 3.3
Netherlands 3.6 1.8 9
NewZealand
4.5 0.9 5 1.4
Norway 1.5 1.8 5
Poland 6.5 9
16
source
Canada
France
Germ
any
Italy
Japan
Russia
UK
US ΣΣΣ ΣG
8im
ports
China
Portugal 0.9 1.0 0.9
Russia 1.0 2.8 1.4 6.8 1.6 0.9 15 9.1
Slovenia 0.9
South Africa 2.3
South Korea 1.1 3.9
Spain 2.6 1.0 1.1 6
Sweden 3.3 10.6 3.4 1.8 8.0 1.0 28
Switzerland 1.1 3.0 4.5 9
Taiwan 0.9 2.5
Thailand 0.9 1.0 2.1
UK 1.3
US 25 1.5 2.0 3.4 15.4 2.5 50 4.6
Source: World Trade Atlas (other than EU countries), Eurostat (EU countries only)Units: million cubic metres roundwood equivalent volumeNote 1: including wood chips would involve double counting if the chips derived from saw mill residuesNote 2: shows which countries (directly) supplied a roundwood equivalent volume more thanapproximately 0.9 million cubic metresNote 3: Approximately 90 per cent of imports are accounted for in Σ columnsNote 4: See Section 7, Appendix I and II, for instances of illegal logging and related trade within thelisted countries
17
Table 2: Proportion of timber exports from countries with illegal logging and related trade, andHCVF loss, that were imported by G8 countries and China during 2000 (million cubic metresroundwood equivalent volume).
Total
Others
Canada
China
France
Germ
any
Italy
Japan
Russia
UK US
Latin America
Brazil 10 31% 11% 33%Europe (including Russian Far East)
Russia 39 52% 16% 17%
Latvia 11 55% 34%
CzechRepublic
6 51% 36%
Estonia 7 79% 10%Tropical Africa
Gabon 2 17% 46% 24%
Cameroon 2 43% 11% 11% 24%
EquatorialGuinea
1 13% 60% 18%
Ghana 1 15% 11% 16% 13% 38%
Liberia 1 14% 47% 24% 12%East Asia and Tropical Oceania
Burma 2 57% 42%
Cambodia 0.2 21% 78%
China 9 49% 33% 15%
Indonesia 24 35% 17% 32% 9%
Malaysia 27 44% 18% 29%
PapuaNewGuinea
2 25% 36% 37%
Vietnam 1 42% 51%
Thailand 3 38% 27% 19% 14Units (Total): million cubic metres roundwood equivalent volumeSource: World Trade Atlas (Canada, China, Russia, USA), Eurostat (France, Germany, Italy, UK), Japan Exportsand ImportsNote 1: Proportions less than 10% not shown which explains why the sum of the percentages given in the rows isless than 100 per cent.
Note 2: Countries exporting timber less than about one million cubic metres RWE volume not shown
Note 3: See Section 7, Appendix I and II, for instances of illegal logging and related trade within the listed countries
18
Table 3: Proportion of pulp and paper exports from countries with illegal logging and relatedtrade, and HCVF loss, that were imported by G8 countries and China during 2000 (million cubicmetres roundwood equivalent volume).
Total
Others
Canada
China
France
Germ
any
Italy
Japan
Russia
UK
US
Latin America
Brazil 14 30% 31%
Europe (including Russian Far East)
Czech Rep 2 25% 13% 36% 19%
Russia 6 24% 45% 14%
Tropical Africa (nil)
East Asia and Tropical Oceania
China 5 50% 38%
Indonesia 15 41% 37% 10%Units (Total): million cubic metres roundwood equivalent volumeSource: World Trade Atlas (Canada, China, Russia, USA), Eurostat (France, Germany, Italy, UK), Japan Exportsand ImportsNote 1: Proportions less than 10 per cent not shown which explains why the sum of the percentages given in therows is less than 100 per cent.Note 2: Countries exporting pulp and paper less than about one million cubic metres RWE volume not shownNote 3: Data compiled for the year 2000.Note 4: See Section 7, Appendix I and II, for instances of illegal logging and related trade within the listed countries
Table 4: Proportion of wooden furniture exports from countries with illegal logging and relatedtrade, and HCVF loss, that were imported by G8 countries and China during 2000 (million cubicmetres roundwood equivalent volume).
10%
Total
Others
Canada
China
France
Germ
any
Italy
Japan
Russia
UK
US
Latin America
Brazil 0.3 14% 24% 15% 37%
Tropical Africa – negligible
East Asia and Tropical Oceania
China 3.0 31% 54%
Indonesia 1.1 23% 18% 32%
Malaysia 1.5 23% 13% 49%
Thailand 0.8 7% 29% 51%
Vietnam 0.2 50% 25% 13%Units (Total): million cubic metres roundwood equivalent volumeSource: World Trade Atlas (Canada, China, Russia, USA), Eurostat (France, Germany, Italy, UK), Japan Exportsand ImportsNote 1: Proportions less than 10% not shown which explains why the sum of the percentages given in the rows isless than 100 per cent.Note 2: Countries exporting wooden furniture with a roundwood equivalent volume of less than about 0.2 millioncubic metres not shownNote 3: source data (in units of either weight or import value) is converted here to give estimates of roundwoodequivalent volumeNote 4: See Section 7, Appendix I and II, for instances of illegal logging and related trade within the listed countries
19
3. Assessment of the G8 and China’s publicprocurement
Together, the G8 countries and China import 609 million cubic metres of Round WoodEquivalent volume (RWE) (timber, wood chips, pulp, paper and wooden furniture) perannum (Table 5). This amounts to two thirds of the timber, pulp, paper and wooden furniturethat is traded globally19, so their purchasing power has tremendous influence. It is estimatedthat on average, 18 per cent of this trade (109 million cubic metres) fulfils governmentprocurement demands (See Methodology, Section 7, Appendix II). The approximateeconomic value of this procurement is US$23 billion (Table 5). By comparison, it isestimated that less than 1 per cent (approximately nine million cubic metres) ofinternationally traded timber is certified as coming from well-managed forests20.
Table 5: Ranking of G8 and China’s public procurement of timber, wood chips, pulp, paper andwooden furniture based on volume of country imports attributed to Government procurement(calculated using the figures of government consumption expressed as a percentage of GDP).
Country Volume ofCountry Imports(million cubicmetres or cum)
GovtConsumptionas % of GDP
Volume of ImportsAttributed toGovernment(million cum)
Value of ImportsAttributed to Govt TimberProcurement (bn US$)
US 205 18% 37 6.6
Japan 89 17% 15 2.7
Germany 75 19% 14 3.4
Italy 56 18% 10 1.6
France 45 23% 10 2.8
UK 53 19% 10 2.5
China 56 13% 7 1.2
Canada 28 18% 5 1.6
RussianFed
2 15% 0.3 0.1
Total 609 - 109 22.5
China and the G8 countries import timber and other wood-based products in varying amountsand from different regions of the world (Table 1). Individual states may therefore haveparticularly significant impacts on a region or a single country. For instance, the US importsmore than a third of the G8 and China’s total imports - predominantly from Canada and, to alesser extent, Latin America and east Asia (Table 1 and 5). Japan imports primarily fromNorth America, Asia, Oceania and Russia; northern EU countries from Europe; southern EUcountries from Europe and Africa; and China from Asia, Oceania, Africa and Europe (Table1). Canada and Russia, two large timber producing countries, import the least amount oftimber. Many of the producing countries within these regions have one or more of the
20
following in common: high levels of foreign debt21, poor governance, high levels of poverty,unsustainable forest management, and the loss of High Conservation Value Forests. Thesefactors, among others, contribute to illegal and unsustainable trade.
Even when imports from a particular producing country do not constitute a large proportionof the total amount imported, it is essential to remember that they may constitute a significantproportion of the producing country’s exports, so could be extremely influential in theforestry sector of that producing country. Consuming countries therefore need to considertheir impact on all countries that provide them with timber and wood-based products, and notjust the volume of timber and products imported.
With the exception of Canada and Russia, it is estimated that all governments examined hereprocure significant amounts of imported wood products (Table 5). Many countries supplyingtimber and other wood-based products are plagued with corruption and illegality within theirforest industry. Table 6 summarises estimates of proportions of illegal timber, pulp and paperthat is imported by the G8 and China. These estimations and the assumptions (Appendix II)behind them are likely to change but in the absence of agreed data they, at the very least,provide an indication of the scale of the problem. In the absence of procurement policies, thegovernments of the G8 and China are likely to be procuring a similar proportion of illegaltimber, pulp and paper.
Table 6: Estimation of illegal timber, pulp and paper imported by G8 and China in 2000 (millioncubic metres roundwood equivalent volume).
Timber Pulp Paper Sum
Total Illegal % Total Illegal % Total Illegal % Total Illegal %
Canada* 1 0 30 0 0 1 1 0 8 2 0 16
China 26 11 44 12 4 33 19 3 14 56 18 32
France 12 2 13 9 0 3 22 0 1 43 2 5
Germany 25 2 9 15 0 3 31 1 3 71 3 5
Italy 30 1 4 12 0 3 14 0 2 56 2 3
Japan 70 16 22 11 0 4 7 1 18 88 17 20
Russia 0 0 19 0 0 3 2 0 2 2 0 4
UK 21 3 14 6 0 4 24 1 4 52 4 8
US* 19 5 26 5 0 1 13 1 10 37 6 17
Sum 204 40 20 69 6 8 134 8 6 407 53 13
* excludes imports from US (Canada) or Canada (USA)Units: million cubic metres roundwood equivalent volume (unless shown as percentage)
Note 1: Figures are rounded to nearest integer eg. 0 implies less than 0.5. 1 implies 0.5 – 1.4
Note 2: For a list of supplying countries see Appendix I and II
Note 3: Sums are of actual figures, not integers, and then rounded to the nearest whole number
The onus should not rest only on the governments of timber producing countries to ensurethat their forest industry operates within their domestic legislation. While it remainsprofitable and cheaper for those in the G8 and China to purchase timber of illegal origin,producer countries will find it extremely difficult to eradicate illegal logging. Governments of
21
consuming countries therefore have a responsibility to ensure that they take action to supportthe eradication of illegal logging and related trade, and to procure only timber that has beenproduced legally and in a responsible manner. As producing countries increase the proportionof legal and sustainable wood products available, they are likely to gain substantially higherrevenues from their exports - leading to a reduction in their indebtedness and improvedcreditworthiness, less dependence on aid from the G8 and China, better prospects for povertyalleviation, and economic stability if combined with good governance. Evidence fromcountries such as Bolivia that have made progress in reducing illegal logging suggests that animportant way to achieve this is to support and promote legal logging22.
For governments to implement a green procurement policy, enforcement agencies need to beable to distinguish between timber of legal and illegal origin. At present, this is almostimpossible because of the lack of monitoring of imports and exports, as well as insufficientdata accompanying traded goods. For example, much of Indonesia’s pulp is exported toChina, which then exports it as paper. If China does not require evidence of legality orsustainability to accompany its pulp imports, then the country to which China exports thepaper has no way of knowing whether the purchase complies with any procurement policy itmay have, or with the national legislation of the country from which the pulp originated.There are numerous other examples of such supply chains, such as the trade of timber andwood products from Finland and Sweden to the G8 (Table 1), where a proportion of thetimber was actually illegally harvested in north-west Russia (Section 7, Appendix I - Russia).This lack of traceability, transparency and accountability contributes to the continuance ofthe illegal timber trade and the accompanying negative environmental, social and economicimpacts.
A mechanism for tracing products from legal sources to the point of purchase - a tracing orchain of custody system - is an essential component of any procurement policy that requirestimber to be purchased from legal sources. For instance, through the chain of custody systememployed by the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC), purchasers of more than 10,000 productscan be assured that the wood in question was sourced from a forestry operation achievingFSC standards of forest management. A similar chain of custody approach could be used toidentify all timber that comes from legal sources.
The World Bank-WWF Alliance has developed practical guidelines on the verification ofwood sources, following a workshop on Verifying wood sources: Developing effective logtracking and chain of custody systems23. The workshop report outlines the principles whichunderlie a chain of custody system and provides a basis for anyone wishing to implementsuch a system. It also summarises the various techniques available to help implement a chainof custody, with guidance on when they are appropriate, how they can be used, theiravailability and their costs. The report provides a sound practical basis for further discussionabout the implementation of mechanisms for verifying that wood products come from a legalsource.
22
4. What are governments doing to procureresponsibly?
It is only in recent years that governments have begun to investigate procurement as a tool forimplementing sustainable development. In this sense, they have been slower to react than thecorporate world, some members of which have incorporated not only economic, but alsosocial and environmental standards into their business practices. For instance, there are nowmore than 850 members of the Global Forest and Trade Network24 - a global network ofbuyers and producers groups committed to promoting certification and sustainable forestmanagement.
The G8 and China have signed numerous forestry agreements resulting in “statements ofpositive intention” to support sustainable forest management (Box 3). But as yet, none ofthese governments has successfully implemented a procurement policy that ensures that allthe timber and wood-based products they purchase are from well-managed forests.
Box 3: International agreements that support sustainable forest management
Agenda 21, Chapter 11, Section A. Adopted at the UN Conference on Environment andDevelopment (UNCED), Rio 1992, by more than 170 governments:“Objective 11.2: To strengthen forest-related national institutions to enhance the scope andeffectiveness of activities related to the management, conservation and sustainable developmentof forests and to effectively ensure the sustainable utilization and production of forest’s goods andservices…”
Santiago Declaration, 3 February 1993. Signed by countries representing more than 90 per centof global resource of temperate and boreal forest - Australia, Canada, Chile, China, Japan,Mexico, New Zealand, Republic of Korea, Russian Federation, US and Uruguay:“Recognising that the sustainable management of all types of forests, including temperate andboreal forests, is an important step to implementing the Statement of Forest Principles andAgenda 21, adopted by UNCED in Rio de Janeiro in 1992, relevant to UN conventions onbiological diversity, climate change and desertification. Also recognising the value of having aninternationally accepted understanding of what constitutes sustainable management of temperateand boreal forests etc.”
Helsinki Declaration on the protection and sustainable management of forests in Europe, 17June 1993. Signed by France, Germany, Italy, the UK and 30 other European countries:“Intention 4: To stimulate and promote without delay, the implementation of the Rio Declaration,Agenda 21, the UNCBD (UN Convention on Biological Diversity) and the UN frameworkconvention on climate change…”
ITTA (International Tropical Timber Agreement) 1994. Signed by numerous producer andconsumer countries of tropical timber, including China and all G8 countries except Russia.“Objective d: To enhance the capacity of members to implement a strategy for achieving exportsof tropical timber and timber products from sustainably managed sources; Objective e: To promote the expansion and diversification of international trade in tropical timberfrom sustainable sources by improving the structural conditions in international markets;Objective k: To improve marketing and distribution of tropical timber exports from sustainablymanaged sources…”
23
The country profiles listed below are based on responses to a questionnaire (see Section 7,Appendix III) sent to the governments of the G8 and China in February 2002. No officialresponse has yet been received from France, Japan, Italy, Russia or the US. Of those that didreply, all are considering certification and labelling as a means of ensuring that minimumenvironmental, social and legal requirements are met - an approach adopted in Denmark andthe Netherlands - as indicated by their response to the same questionnaire. As it is mentionedin all responses, the FSC appears to be the international standard by which all otheraccreditation systems are currently assessed.
Canada: In a full response to our questionnaire, the government cited the development of itsEnvironmental Choice Programme’s (ECP) “Green Procurement Policy”. This directsgovernment agencies to take environmental considerations into account when makingpurchasing decisions. The ECP has produced green procurement checklists which set out theenvironmental attributes that should be considered by government purchasers. In addition, theECP has a “green furniture” checklist, which states that “wood materials used in furnitureshould be grown and harvested in a sustainable manner”. Neither the policy nor the checklistsmake any specific requirements regarding the legality of the raw materials. The governmentfully supports certification as a tool in the demonstration of sustainable forest managementand is currently considering how this might feature in the further development of thechecklists.
China: The government has set up an informal advisory body for trade and the environmentwhich includes work on forestry, timber and non-timber forest products. China has generalprocurement policies that relate not only to the life-cycle assessment of products, but also toenvironmental aspects of imported timber. Timber procurement specifically identifiestropical hardwood which carries the risk that the “overall forest impact” is not considered,because many issues highlighted by the crisis in tropical forests also occur in boreal andtemperate forests.
China requires contractors to meet in full all government environmental requirements. Thegovernment’s reply states that it already checks wood and wood products for legality at itsborders, and that a register is required. FSC certification is being considered as a means ofmeeting its environmental obligations.
France: Although a response was not received in time for inclusion in this report, the Ministerfor the Environment stated on 11 April: “The government has decided to include criteria intoits public procurement practices which will favour the purchase of timber by FSC orequivalent certification systems”. However, last year France passed a law stating that allaward criteria should be directly linked to the subject of the public contract, and thatenvironmental criteria should be linked to the performance of the product, thereforeexcluding the specification of environmental criteria to process and production methods.Thus, it is possible to stipulate environmental requirements to the technical criteria, but not tothe award criteria. In order to implement the commitment to green procurement, the law willhave to be changed. As an EU member state, France will also have to implement theEuropean Commission directive on public procurementv, which outlines EU rules relating toprocurement activities25.
24
Germany: The government has no stated procurement policy, but as an EU member state,Germany should implement the EU directive. It does not have an interdepartmental approachto procurement, but does have a specialist department within the Department of Trade andTechnology. The government acknowledges the importance of “efforts against the illegalfelling of timber and the trade in illegally harvested timber” but notes that “import controls toensure the observance of foreign statutes and the prosecution of possible violations can becarried out, at best, in concrete cases and at the specific request of the country involved”26.Germany is also considering certification and labelling as a means by which a minimumprocurement standard can be met. The government has announced that it will change itspublic procurement policy to favour the purchase of timber certified by the FSC or equivalentcertification systems27.
Italy: Despite repeated requests, no response to the questionnaire was received. It could beinferred from this that no policy is in place.
Japan: No official response has been received. However, positive statements of intent tominimise Japan’s impact on forests through its trade were made by the government at thesecond meeting of the United Nations Forum on Forests this year. Unofficially, there aresigns28 that Japan is becoming concerned at “upstream impacts of purchasing forestproducts”. Concern was expressed28 that Japanese policy on wood purchase “does not go toforest level” and it was also indicated that the government “wants sustainable forestmanagement”. It appears that discussions on bilateral arrangements in support of sustainableforest management initiatives are starting with Russia and Indonesia, two major suppliers tothe Japanese market. There appear to be cautious signs of hope that Japan will begin to movetowards responsible procurement of wood products within the public sector.
Russia: No response to the questionnaire was received. Government procurement of timberfrom other countries is estimated to be negligible and the purchase of illegal timber fromdomestic sources by the government is outside the scope of this study. It is worth noting,however, that efforts are being made by the Russian forestry industry to introduce a systemfor tracing the origin of timber, as an element of environmentally-friendly and sustainableforest management. An Association of Ecologically Responsible Loggers of Russia has beenformed and more than 400,000 hectares of forest land have been certified under the FSCsystem. The experience of wood product verification amassed by foreign companiesconsuming Russian timber, such as StoraEnso, UPM Kymmene and IKEA, is being promotedand adopted by Russian companies12. More than two million hectares of forest are planned tobe FSC-certified before the end of 2002, with no less than 10 million hectares (a seventh ofall Russian commercial timber) to be certified, or ready for certification, by 200513.
v The proposed new legislation for the EU Public Procurement directive states that the principle of the lowest price
should be the criterion for awarding contracts. As a result, criteria relating to the production and trading process of
the product cannot be taken into account, in the award phase, if they are not visible in the end-product. In practice,
this will discourage environmentally, socially and ethically sound public procurement for many products and services
subject to public tendering. The Commission proposal is not in line with the EU Treaty requiring that environment
and development policies need to be integrated into all EU policies, nor is it in line with the jurisprudence of the
European Court of Justice which has stated that the only constraint on using social and ecological criteria is that they
should be non-discriminatory and should not represent barriers to free movement of goods and services.
Furthermore, the Commission proposal is in contradiction with the EU social and environmental policy.
25
UK: The Minister for the Environment announced a procurement policy in July 200029, buttwo years later, it has not yet been effectively implemented. A scoping study commissionedto investigate current UK government procurement practice is due for completion in June2002. To assist and coordinate wood purchase policy across the whole range of governmentdepartments, an interdepartmental working group led by the Department for the Environment,Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) reports directly to the Minister.
The timetable for the implementation of the government’s policies on wood procurement, andthe stages by which it can be implemented, has recently been the subject of a stakeholderconsultation process involving NGOs and trade representatives.
US: No response was received. The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976(RCRA) provides a framework for US federal procurement30. In addition, the President issuedan order in 1998 to encourage federal agencies to seek to buy products “that areenvironmentally preferable and/or bio-based”. In June 2001, the US General AccountingOffice produced a report30 reviewing progress in this area. The report states that informationon purchasing practices by the government is difficult to obtain due to a lack of an automatedtracking system, and it points out that major purchase sources are excluded from agencyreports. It also indicates the existence of legal frameworks which appear to favour greenprocurement, and the fact that these are largely ignored by the federal agencies, procurementbodies and contractors. The report also reveals that despite Environmental Protection Agencyguidelines on how to integrate greener products into purchasing decisions and theimplementation of programmes, adherence to these guidelines cannot be determined due toincomplete reporting and lack of monitoring.
The four major US government procuring agencies’ efforts to promote procurement policieshave generally not increased awareness, with only the Department of Energy reviewing andmonitoring purchases.
26
5. Discussion
At present, of the governments of the G8 countries and China, only the UK has started to takeaction to implement a green procurement policy for forest products. Others, notably Italy,appear to be doing nothing at all. It is difficult to accurately quantify the extent to which thegovernments of the G8 and China may be procuring illegal timber, but it has been estimatedthat up to a third of the timber and wood-based products procured by those governments maybe illegal. Without responsible procurement policies, the G8 and China are supporting thebusiness activities of those involved in the trade of illegal timber and wood products. Tradedata presented in this report almost certainly underestimates the true picture because in manycountries - for example, Burma31 - the timber recorded by the forestry departments is only asmall proportion of the actual felling and/or exports. Illegal logging and the subsequentillegal trade in timber pose particular threats to high biodiversity forests32, as well as to long-term poverty alleviation and development.
Governments must ensure that they purchase only legal timber sourced from sustainablymanaged forests, so that they do not contribute to illegal activities and unsustainable levels oftimber harvesting and trade. Verification of sustainability through certification systemsmeeting standards equivalent to those of the FSC would ensure legality. A governmentprocurement policy that specifies certified wood as a preferential choice in contracts wouldhave positive impacts throughout the supply chain, and lead to improvements in forestmanagement.
A number of tools exist to help implement procurement policies. Certification and chain ofcustody systems - notably the FSC - were set up to offer a credible choice to consumerswishing to purchase only products produced to high environmental and social standards.Chain of custody systems that enable the supply chain to be traced back to a forest managedin accordance with national legislation, as well as to standards of forest managementequivalent to those of the FSC, have been developed and should be applied. In somecountries where illegal logging is an issue, certification may be too difficult a goal to attaininitially. In these countries it should be a priority to encourage a step by step approach tocertification. The first step would be to eliminate illegal activity in the forestry sector.Various tools such as producers groups24, the SGS certification support programme33 and theTropical Forest Trust business to business agreements34 are available to assistimplementation.
By supporting certification and labelling, governments could, at a stroke, achieve two crucialobjectives: be assured that they were not purchasing illegally harvested logs, and that theirgoods were the products of well-managed forestry.
The governments of the G8 and China must adopt and implement procurement policies fortimber procurement. Governments that have made statements of intent regarding the adoptionof green procurement policies need to make further progress in establishing minimumprocurement requirements. A number of steps need to be taken, including discussions withtrade bodies and suppliers, and comparative evaluation of accreditation for certificationorganisations. These are all topics of some complexity and in order to keep the processmoving, it is likely that an evaluation of short/medium and long-term strategies and actionswill be necessary. Thus, timetables can be produced by which progress can be judged. This
27
process is under way in the UK through the Timber Scoping Study, commissioned in October2001.
In the absence of a comprehensive approach to timber procurement in each country,government departments will continue to send out mixed signals to suppliers about theirpreference for certified timber and wood-based products. This will then act as a disincentiveto suppliers in their attempts to source certified timber and products, in order to meetgovernment requirements35. For this reason, each government should develop a single policy,with targets, that applies to all its departments. It should also put in place mechanisms toensure consistency in communicating its procurement requirements, as the UK has done. TheUS, for example, could take advantage of the Office of the Federal Environmental Executive,which was established in 1998 to recommend initiatives for government-wide procurementpreference programmes, but which is severely under-budgeted.
The adoption of a “whole government approach”, such as that established by China,Denmark, the Netherlands and the UK, enables governments to fully understand all aspects oftheir timber procurement, and allows the sharing of knowledge and best-practice in a cost-effective way. This also reduces the likelihood of an individual department procuringunsuitable timber, which may result in negative publicity for the whole governmentvi, 36. Afurther advantage of an “interdepartmental approach” is that assessments of timberprocurement can be fully comprehensivevii.
Procurement on behalf of government by private contractors is another important aspect thatmust be addressed. Governments might argue that they cannot be directly responsible fortimber and wood-based products purchased on their behalfviii. However, they must ensure thatthose acting on their behalf purchase in an ethically responsible manner. In order to avoidchallenges under WTO anti-discrimination rules37, it is imperative that governments includetheir procurement requirements (such as certification and labelling) as part of the technicalspecification before contracts are put out to tender. A clear, legally vetted and broadlyapplied timber procurement requirement (either internally within government or at anintergovernmental level) will allow government agencies to apply consistent specificationswhen drafting tender documents. Unless companies receive clear specifications regardingenvironmental and social standards when they bid for government contracts, it is unlikely thatsuch standards will be reached. Therefore, it is at this point that practical influence must takeeffect, if contractors for government works are to be obliged to quote timber produced to FSCor equivalent standards. The use of the term “equivalent” and its definition is also crucialunder anti-discrimination legislation.
However, the G8 and China should not stop trading with countries with poor forest lawcompliance or where laws are either weak or conflicting. Instead, they should work withthese governments and their forest industry to improve the situation. The provision of
vi For instance, in 1999, discussions on forest protection, hosted by a UK Minister, were held around a brand new
mahogany table.vii For example, the consultation paper circulated in March 2002 as part of the Timber Scoping Study of the UK
Government.viii For instance, “The policy of the Chinese Government is to regulate firms. It does not purchase timber. (sic)” – Dr
Hu Tao, Coordinator of the Working Group on Trade and Environment, China Council for International Cooperation
on Environment and Development.
28
technical support and aid by the G8 would help improve standards of forest management,trade and governance. In turn, timber producing countries could assist with implementinggreen procurement policies in consumer countries by providing, inter alia, prior notificationof shipments of logs and validating their legality. Such a relationship is being exploredthrough the recent Memorandum of Understanding between Indonesia and the UK38.
The eradication of illegal logging and associated crimes will be a complex and lengthyprocess requiring long-term support from the G8. There is an urgent need to begin phasing innew procurement policies which are underpinned by a suite of measures, including supportfor the step by step approach to certification and the development of voluntary bilateral tradeagreements.
29
6. Recommendations
The Governments of the G8 and China should:• commit to and implement policies that specify the purchase of timber and forest products
from well-managed forests. Law compliance would be a crucial first step;• support the adoption of voluntary bilateral trade agreements that ensure the supply of
legal timber as a first step in applying responsible procurement policies;• encourage consumer countries to provide aid and technical assistance to producer
countries, so that the root causes of forest crime (including poverty alleviation) can beaddressed;
• promote improved transparency and enforcement of existing laws: where necessary,encourage amending or drafting new legislation and strengthening of implementation;
• promote independent monitoring and auditing schemes, such as that provided by theForest Stewardship Council, for forest management and tracking wood products from theforest to the end user;
• support and promote the increased use of global forest and trade networks to createmarkets for legal and sustainable timber. This would include the development ofproducers groups in Asia and Africa, which could help satisfy procurement demands;
• assist the implementation of systems for verifying legal compliance, especially incountries where certification will take some time to develop;
• in the absence of available certified products, the G8 and China should seek to procurefrom companies that are members of the Global Forest and Trade Network, or from thoseimplementing a monitored phased approach to certification;
• make the import of illegal timber and wood-based products illegal, thereby obviating theneed to specify that all procured goods must be legal in origin, provided the chain ofcustody mechanism is in place; and
• support the creation of, and adopt existing, investment screens for government andprivate sector investment in key wood product sectors.
In addition, we recommend the following in order to assist in implementing timberprocurement policies:
Operational• that the governments of the G8 and China appoint (if they have not done so already) and
provide sufficient support for an interdepartmental working group to coordinate policy onprocurement of all imported timber and wood-based products to include timber, timbergoods, furniture, construction materials and components, pulp and paper goods and non-timber forest products;
• that any government working group operates within a framework of transparency:publishing its minutes, producing draft timetables for achieving the stages outlined earlierand including bi-annual public reporting. These working groups should also approveaccreditation systems for chain of custody and forest management certification.
30
Policy• that norms are decided at an international level for chain of custody verification for
timber and wood products (in the first instance), and in due course standards required forlegal origin and forest level certification of sustainable forest management;
• that “green procurement” clauses be immediately included in all tenders for governmentcontracts and that preference be given to contractors who can show they are makingefforts to comply with those clauses;
• that intergovernmental liaison and communication be maintained and those standards forprocurement be harmonised, preferably at a global level;
• that all ongoing government-supported instruments and measures for responsible forestmanagement include clauses that bind signatory countries to green procurement norms;
• that all the above measures complement other international instruments and agreementson forest protection within the overall framework of Chapter 11 of Agenda 21, as well asthe resolutions of the Ministerial Declaration from the Forest Law Enforcement andGovernance Conference held in Bali in September 2001, and the OECD Councilrecommendations of 23 January 200239; and
• that those G8 and EU countries that have policies specifically referring to tropical timberbe urged to extend these policies to include all timber products in international trade.
Capacity-building• that development support be given to forest departments and projects in producer
countries that are preparing for chain of custody and forest management certification andlabelling under approved accreditation systems;
• that certification and labelling be included in training seminars for architects, specifiers,procurement staff, buyers, contractors, suppliers and policy advisers within government;and
• that government procurement institutions, professional bodies and purchasing consortiawho supply government bodies are briefed by interdepartmental working groups oncertification and labelling.
31
7. Appendices
APPENDIX I. COUNTRIES SUPPLYING THE G8 AND CHINA WITH TIMBER ANDWOOD-BASED PRODUCTS THAT HAVE RECORDED CASES OF FOREST CRIME
In the following countries, illegal activities in the forest sector have been documented bymany organisations. However, some estimates of illegal logging rates may have changedsince publication, or may apply only to particular regions of a country, rather than to thewhole. This is not an exhaustive review of the global scale of illegal logging and reflects thelack of comprehensive information available for many countries.
Latin AmericaBrazil: IBAMA estimates that 80 per cent of logging in the Brazilian Amazon is illegal40. TheUK’s Department for International Development has stated that mahogany logging, whichmostly occurs on indigenous reserves, has been implicated in serious social disruption ofindigenous communities, including assassination, alcohol- and drug-related problems, andillness41. On the positive side, Brazil now has a total of 1.15m hectares of certified forests, ofwhich 0.35m ha are native Amazon forests, 0.2m ha are native Atlantic forests, and theremainder are plantations. In addition to the forest-management certifications, 95 privatecompanies in Brazil have obtained FSC chain of custody certification covering the processingof logs, lumber and charcoal, the manufacture of wood components and finished goods, andthe production of food- and cosmetic-grade products such as heart of palm and phyto-therapyingredients.
Within the G8 and China, Brazil’s main timber markets are the US and UK, while its mainpulp and paper market is the US (31 per cent). Brazil is also a major source of woodenfurniture for the US (37 per cent), France (24 per cent) and the UK (15 per cent).
AfricaCameroon: Fifty per cent of logging in Cameroon is illegal42. In 1997, most large timbercompanies in Cameroon were reported to be involved in illegal trade, thus endangeringwildlife43. Between 1992 and 1995, the estimated loss of tax revenues to the government wasmore than 50 per cent43. The problems also extend to protected areas44. If recent rates oflogging and concession allocation continue, large-scale commercial forestry will beexhausted within 10 years45.
Within the G8 and China, Cameroon’s main timber markets are Italy, China and France(importing 24 per cent, 11 per cent and 11 per cent of Cameroon’s timber exportsrespectively).
Gabon: Implementation of forest legislation (Law 1/82) remains difficult, with almost 75 percent of planned decrees never having been written, and with several logging concessions onthe government’s 1997 list of valid logging permits occurring in protected areas46. Analysisof ITTO trade data shows imbalances of over 25 per cent between Gabon’s reported logexports and China’s reported log imports for 1998 and 200047.
Within the G8 and China, Gabon’s main timber markets are China (46 per cent of Gabon’sexports) and France (24 per cent).
32
Ghana: In the early 1990s, research showed that large amounts of UK aid had been divertedinto illegal timber operations48.
Within the G8 and China, Ghana’s main timber markets are Germany (16 per cent), Italy (13per cent) and France (11 per cent).
Liberia: There are strong links between the timber industry, the arms trade, human rightsabuses and regional conflicts2. Within the G8 and China, Liberia’s main timber markets areChina (47 per cent), France (24 per cent) and Italy (12 per cent).
AsiaBurma: Almost half the country’s timber exports (some 276,000 cubic metres valued atUS$86 million) were undeclared in 199930. The illegal trade is mostly carried out by foreign(mainly Chinese and Thai) companies40.
Within the G8 and China, Burma’s main timber market is China (42 per cent).
China: A logging ban introduced in 1998 drastically reduced domestic supply, and saw athree-fold increase in logging imports. Discrepancies between current demand of around 260million cubic metres and the documented supply of 140 million cubic metres suggestssubstantial imports of illegal timber49. A large proportion, perhaps the majority of China’sexports, derive from wood-based products imported from Russia, South-east Asia and Africa.
Within the G8 countries, China’s main timber markets are Japan and the US (33 per cent and16 per cent of China’s timber exports respectively). Its main pulp and paper (39 per cent) andwooden furniture (54 per cent) market is also the US.
Indonesia: it was estimated in the 1990s that 73 per cent of exports were illegal18. Economiclosses due to illegal logging were estimated to be US$600 million a year in the mid-90s50,with an estimated annual illegal cut of 15 million cubic metres51. In 1994, the governmentadmitted that 84 per cent of concession holders violated logging laws52. Legal restrictionshave been ignored in order to clear natural forests and establish fast-growing plantations.Villagers have reported being subjected to violence by army and company guards whenreporting objections to such forest-clearings43. Forest fires in 1997 and 1998 were started inorder to disguise land-clearing and illegal logging activities43.
Forest cover in Indonesia has fallen from 162 million hectares in 1950 to 98 million hectarestoday53. Since 1996, deforestation appears to have increased to approximately 2 millionhectares a year from 1.7 million a year in the 1980s53. Lowland tropical forests are predictedto disappear in Sumatra by 2005 and in Kalimantan by 2010 if current trends continue53. Atleast 16 million hectares of natural forest have been approved for conversion to plantations,in contravention of legal requirements, while much of that which has already been clearedlies idle53.Within the G8 and China, Indonesia’s main timber markets are Japan (32 per cent), China (17per cent) while its main pulp and paper market is China (37 per cent). Indonesia’s mainwooden furniture markets are the US (32 per cent) and Japan (18 per cent).
33
Malaysia: In 1995, it was reported that about 35 per cent of exports were illegal17. However,incidences of illegal logging in Malaysia have fallen dramatically since the implementation ofthe amended National Forest Act, which greatly increased the penalties for such offences54.Even so, Malaysia imports illegal timber from Indonesia, then re-exports it: an estimated 1million cubic metres of stolen timber from West Kalimantan (in Indonesia) enters Sarawak(in Malaysia) every year55. The illegal timber trade from East Kalimantan to Sabah, Malaysia,was estimated to have cost the Indonesian government at least US$580 million in the lastdecade55.
Within the G8 and China, Malaysia’s main timber markets are Japan (29 per cent ofMalaysia’s exports) and China (189 per cent), while its main wooden furniture markets arethe US (49 per cent) and Japan (13 per cent).
Papua New Guinea: Between 1994 and 1998, losses in national income due to illegal orfraudulent activities in the forestry sector were estimated to be in the range of US$18056-$36557 million a year. The dominant role in the forestry sector has switched from Japanese toMalaysian companies, whose principal client is China. The Government’s 1987 Commissionof Inquiry into Aspects of the Timber Industry in Papua New Guinea found abundantevidence of illegal logging - but the report was suppressed, evidence destroyed and anattempt made on the inspector’s life58.
Within the G8 and China, Papua New Guinea’s main timber markets are Japan (37 per cent)and China (36 per cent).
Thailand: The introduction of a ban on commercial logging in natural forests in 198959 drovethe illegal timber trade further underground, with illegally logged timber being smuggled outof Thailand and re-imported with false papers60. As a result of this ban, it is also likely that alarge proportion of Thailand’s official timber exports are sourced from forests inneighbouring countries such as Burma, Cambodia and Laos61, 62.
Within the G8 and China, Thailand’s main timber markets are the China (27 per cent), Japan(19 per cent) and the US (14 per cent), while its main pulp and paper market is China (40 percent). Thailand’s main wooden furniture markets within the G8 are the US (51 per cent) andJapan (29 per cent).
Vietnam: Illegal logging of hardwood trees is prevalent in many national parks, with anestimated 1 million cubic metres extracted illegally every year63, 64. Despite a ban on logimports from Cambodia, Vietnam processes illegal Cambodian timber and exports it asgarden furniture to Europe65.
Within the G8 and China, Vietnam’s main timber market is Japan (51 per cent). Its mainwooden furniture markets are Japan (25 per cent) and the UK (13 per cent).
EuropeCzech Republic: Despite being designated as a protected area, logging was extended to coreareas of Sumava National Park in 1999 and 2000, even though conservationists and forestecology experts opposed the logging66.
34
Within the G8 and China, the Czech Republic’s main timber market is Germany (36 percent). Its main pulp and paper markets are Germany (36 per cent), Italy (19 per cent) andFrance (13 per cent).
Estonia: Non-governmental organisations estimate that about 50 per cent of timber felled inEstonian forests is illegal67, while the government states that only 2 per cent of all logging isillegal. The government does admit, however, that a lack of resources makes it difficult toreveal all illegal practices68. Cheap timber sold at Estonian ports to western European andScandinavian forest companies helps to encourage the illegal trade40. The recent FSCcertification of over 1 million hectares of State Forest Service land (50 per cent of its stateforests) will start to address this in these forests - but the problem will remain in the privateforests.
Within the G8 and China, Estonia’s main timber market is the UK (10 per cent).
Latvia: A total of 3,955 incidences of illegal logging, with a logged volume of more than200,000 cubic metres, were registered in Latvia in 200069. The official estimate states thatcurrently 2-3 per cent of Latvian timber exports are illegal, but present research byenvironmental NGOs will independently assess the volume and value of illegal logging andillegal timber exports.
The Latvian state forest management company Latvijas Valsts Mezi (LVM) has committed tocertify, under the FSC, 1.4 million hectares of forest over the next few years.
Within the G8 and China, Latvia’s main timber market is the UK (34 per cent).
Russian Federation: Estimates of illegal logging in Russia range between 2070 and 5071 percent. Illegal harvesting occurs in all the primary wood-producing areas of the country,including the north-west, southern Siberia and the Caucasus, but particularly in the Far East.The state annually loses more than US$1 billion due to illegal wood harvesting, processingand trade: the official export of forest products totals US$3.3 billion and the turnover offorest and paper products is near US$5 billion12. Sweden is the third-largest importer ofRussian timber and it is estimated that between 25-35 per cent of the Russo-Swedish timbertrade originates from illegal logging72, 73. The situation in trade to Finland is marginallybetter. Illegal timber imported into Scandinavia from Russia is re-exported to the EU andelsewhere, thus making accurate estimations of volumes of illegal timber purchased by G8countries difficult to calculate: the timber is labelled Finnish or Swedish, even though it waslogged in Russia.
Timber from the Russian Far East is exported mainly to China and Japan. In the Krasnoyarskiregion in the first half of 2001, more than a third of forestry inspections detected violations offorest laws, with damages estimated to be worth 8 billion roubles (US$25 million)74. In 2000,according to official data, exports of timber from Primorye exceeded the official amount cutthere by 700,000 cubic metres75. Exporters often understate the true weight of exports by asmuch as 20-50 per cent. This leads to understatement of the volume, thus allowing moretimber to be exported than is officially recorded75.
Within the G8 and China, Russia’s main timber markets are China (16 per cent) and Japan (17 percent), while its main pulp and paper markets are China (45 per cent) and Germany (14 per cent).
35
North AmericaThe vast majority of logging in Canada is legal, but apart from serious concerns aboutsustainability, there are issues of compliance with regulations and ethical matters. One suchissue is the loophole surrounding grade setting, which the Sierra Legal Defense Fundestimated was used by logging companies in British Columbia to avoid as much as Can$149million in stumpage (or provincial) fees76. In an Ontario study, compliance violations oflogging guidelines were detected in 55 per cent of areas designated for protection as areas ofconcern and riparian reserves77. Logging licences have been granted by provincialgovernments on land where tenure is in dispute by First Nations, including in some casesareas where treaties have not yet been negotiated between the First Nations and the federalgovernment.
Within the G8 and China, Canada supplies all countries except Russia.
Appendix II. Estimations and rationale used for the compilation of Table 6
Supplying Country % Illegal Rationale
Brazil (tropical) 80% See appendix 1, 80% relates to natural tropical forests notplantation forests.
Burma 50% Measured by estimating difference in declared exports by Burmaand declared imports from Burma31.
Cambodia 100% There is a formal suspension of logging so any production is illegal(Report 379 of the Fafo institute, Oslo, March 2002).
Cameroon 50% See appendix 1.
China 40% Timber – Much of its exports probably derive from imports –logging bans in major producer regions within China. China’simports come from Russia 25%, Indonesia 15%, Malaysia 20%,Gabon 5%, Papua New Guinea and Thailand 5%. Illegalpercentages 40%, 100%, 35%, 70% and 70% respectively, gives40% of all imports. Assume timber harvested in China for exportdoes not warrant an increase or decrease in this percentage.
China 20% Pulp and paper: Imports Indonesia 15%, Russia 10%, % illegal =100%, 40%. Assume zero wood-based pulp production in China.
Equatorial Guinea 50% Maximum annual production is exceeded by between 40-60% andmaximum concession size are not adhered to.
Estonia 50% Estonian Green Movement/FoE Estonia (www.roheline.ee/eng).
Finland 5% Pulp and paper as well as timber; imports from Russia 80%, Estonia10%. Illegal 20% and 50% respectively. 20% of all imports is illegal.Imports add 30% to local harvest, assumed legal.
Gabon 70% Only 30% of the total due under the “allocation tax” is recovered.Although accounting for c10% of tax revenues from forestry, theallocation tax is much the largest tax on production. Thus, 70% oftimber exports are illegal.
Ghana 60% FAO Forestry Outlook Study for Africa (www.fao./forestry).
Indonesia 100% Pulp and paper as well as timber.
36
Supplying Country % Illegal Rationale
Latvia 20% Official estimate is 2-3%. A new study is currently beingundertaken and it is estimated that this figure will be much higher.
Liberia 80% All logging companies are some way involved in human rightsviolations and arm conflict (Global Witness pers. Comm.).
Russia (North and West) 20% Pulp and paper as well as timber (upper range 25-35%).
Russia (Far East) 40% Pulp and paper as well as timber (upper limit 50%)
Malaysia (Peninsular) 18% i.e. half level estimated for Borneo as improved law enforcement.
Malaysia (Sarawak andSabah)
35% Very little change in law enforcement since original estimate in1995.
Norway 10% Pulp and paper as well as timber; imports from Sweden 50%,Russia 10%, Estonia 10%. Illegal 20%, 20% and 50%respectively. Imports add 100% to local harvest, assumed legal.
Papua New Guinea 70% Thai imports come from Malaysia 60%, Burma 10%, Laos 15%.Assuming these are 35%, 50% and 70% illegal and the rest arelegal, 40% of imports are illegal.
South Korea 30% Having little forest, most of its exports must derive from imports.10% of its imports come from each of Indonesia and Malaysia, afurther 10% from disreputable tropical countries, 15% from Russiaand 10% from China. Assuming illegal content of those imports100%, 35%, 70%, 40% and 40% respectively, 30% of imports areillegal.
Taiwan 45% Having little forest, most of its exports must derive from imports.25% of its imports come from each of Indonesia and Malaysia,15% from China and 5% from Thailand. Assuming illegal contentof those imports 100%, 35%, 40% and 70% respectively, 45% ofimports are illegal.
Thailand 40% Most of its exports must derive from imports – logging ban inThailand’s natural forest
Sweden 5% Pulp and paper as well as timber; imports from Russia 25%, Estonia15%, Latvia 30%, Lithuania 5% the proportions of illegal importsare 20%, 50%, 20% and 20% respectively. So 20% of imports areillegal. Imports add 30% to local harvest, assumed legal.
APPENDIX III. METHODOLOGY OF TRADE DATA COLLECTION
Data was collected from Eurostat (for EU countries) and from World Trade Atlas (for allother countries). Data was compiled for imports of timber, wood chips, pulp, paper andwooden furniture for the year 2000. The source data has been converted to give RWEvolume, the unit of measure for which is cubic metres.
To estimate how much timber each government procures annually, government consumptionfigures were obtained from the International Monetary Fund’s Financial Statistics Yearbook1999. Government consumption figures were expressed as a percentage of Gross Domestic
37
Product to estimate government purchasing as a percentage of total spending by the country.Then, assuming this percentage of government consumption to be the same across sectors, itwas estimated how much of each country’s timber consumption and timber imports wereprocured by government alone. In the absence of official timber and wood productprocurement databases, this was deemed the most indicative guide to timber procurementavailable.
When referred to a billion is a thousand million.
APPENDIX IV. G8 AND CHINA QUESTIONNAIRE
Section A: A single question to confirm WWF trade statistics
Section B: Questions about environmental, social and legal criteria in specificationQ 1 Does the government distinguish between tropical and non-tropical timber in policyterms? Does it encourage or require its contractors to make such a distinction?
Q 2 Does the government have a policy on timber procurement? If so, does it refer to legality,environmental or social conditions at a forest level?
Q 3 Does the government have a “point of contact” on timber purchase policy?
Q 4 How are forest-related clauses in environmental agreements (such as Agenda 21 Ch11,ITTA, the Helsinki or Montreal Agreements) signed by… government being implemented?
Q 5 Is there any guidance or requirement on contractors at times of renewal of contracts toobserve governments intentions towards minimising upstream environmental or sociallynegative impacts upon forests?
Q 6 Are there any border checks to ascertain whether national or international forestry lawsare being breached?
Section C: Questions about better purchasing policiesQ 1 If there are no border checks, are there plans to implement these controls?
Q 2 Are certification systems under consideration in order to ensure that timber and otherforest products come from legal sources and well managed forests?
Q 3 Are there other plans by… government to ensure that it only uses timber from legalsources and well-managed forests?
Q 4 Does the… government liaise with other governments about best practice for buyingwood and other wood products?
38
8. Endnotes
1 World Bank, 2001. A revised strategy for the World Bank group. Draft, 30 July 2001,Washington DC, US, cited by 9.2 UN Expert Panel on Liberia Report to the Security Council (SC/7196), 25 November 2001 citedby Global Witness, 2001. Briefing Document: UN reports undermine its own stance on Liberia.3 Baird, 2001. Remarks to the planning meeting of the International Forest Law Enforcement andGovernance Conference, Jakarta, June 2001 (unpublished, available from the World Bank countryoffice).4 G8 Foreign Ministers Meeting, May 1998. “G8 Action Programme on Forests”.www.g7.utoronto.ca/g7/foreign/forests.html, accessed 10/04/2002.5 Global Forest Watch, 2000. Canada’s forests at a crossroads: an assessment in the year 2000.6 Greenpeace, 2000. Against the law: the G8 and the illegal timber trade.7 Friends of the Earth, 2001. European league table of imports of illegal tropical timber.8 FERN, 2001. EU Forest Watch Special Report: EU illegal timber imports.9 The Royal Institute of International Affairs, 2002. Controlling the international trade in illegallylogged timber and forest products.10 Contreras-Hermosilla, 1997. The “Cut and Run” course of corruption in the forestry sector.Journal of Forestry, 95: 12, cited by Contreras-Hermosilla, 2002. Government policy options toimprove law compliance in the forest sector. FAO 2002.11 WWF, unpublished. From the forest to the consumer: an overview of the forest industry inCentral Africa.12 WWF Russia, 2002. Illegal logging in the southern part of the Russian Far East: problemanalysis and proposed solutions. A case study on experiences of log tracking and chain of custodypractices in forestry and forest products in Russia.13 WWF, 2001. Briefing Paper: The Russian Producers’ Group: development and recentsuccesses.14 Smith, P.M., Hass, M.P. and Luppold, W.G. 1995. An analysis of tropical hardwood productimportation and consumption in the United States. Forest Products Journal, 45: 31-37 cited by 15.15 Robbins, C.S., 2001. Mahogany Matters: The US Market for big-leafed mahogany and itsimplications for the conservation of the species. TRAFFIC North America.16 Edgar Maravi, WWF Peru, personal communication.17 Dudley, N., Jeanrenaud, J.P. and Sullivan, F., 1995. Bad Harvest? The timber trade and thedegradation of the world’s forests. Earthscan, London.18 Indonesia-UK Tropical Forest Management Programme, 2000. Roundwood supply and demandin the forest sector in Indonesia.19 James Hewitt, based on analysis of World Trade Atlas, Eurostat and national yearbooks ofimport statistics.20 Forestry Commission, UK. www.forestry.gov.uk, accessed 16 April, 2002.21 World Bank, www.worldbank.org, accessed 16 April, 2002.22 WWF press release, 22 March 2002. Bolivia becomes world leader in FSC certified tropicalforests.23 18-21 March 2002, Phnom Penh, Cambodia.24 WWF, 2002. The Global Forest and Trade Network: Partnerships to help save the world’sforests. www.panda.org.forestandtrade.25 European Union, www.europa.eu.int/comm/environment.
39
26 Letter from T. Knebel, 14 March 2002, Ministry of Trade and Technology, German FederalGovernment.27 WWF, 2002. Certification in Europe. Newsletter: Forestry and Wood Certification, No. 6.January- April.28 In an unofficial response from the Forest Agency of Japan.29 Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, UK. www.press.dtlr.gov.uk,accessed May 2002.30 United States General Accounting Office, 2001. Federal procurement: better guidance andmonitoring needed to assess purchases of environmentally friendly products. GAO-01-430, reportto Congressional Requesters.31 World Resources Institute, 1998. Logging Burma’s frontier forests. Washington DC, USA.32 Dudley, N., Jeanrenaud, J-P., and Sullivan, F. 1998. The timber trade and the loss of globalbiodiversity, Ambio 27 (3); 248-250.33 Forestry Section, www.sgsgroup.com/my34 www.tropicalforesttrust.com35 Noted from a discussion with a Managing Director of a firm of UK timber importers.36 The Guardian, 11 April 2002. Forest Crime demonstration.37 World Trade Oganisation, www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/envir_e/envir_e.htm, accessed 10May, 2002.38 Government of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, 2002. Memorandum of understandingbetween the Government of the Republic of Indonesia and the Government of Great Britain andNorthern Ireland on cooperation to improve forest law enforcement and governance and tocombat illegal logging and the international trade in illegally logged timber and wood products.39 OECD High Level Meeting on Environment, Sustainable Development and Trade, Berlin, 20-22 March 2001.40 Brazilian Secretariat for Strategic Affairs, 1997, cited by 6.41 Quoted by Greenpeace, 2001. Partners in Mahogany Crime.42 Centre pour Environnement et Developpement, Inside Cameroon, cited by 6.43 WWF and IUCN, 1999. The illegal timber trade: implications for global forest quality, apreliminary analysis.44 Davis, S.D., Heywood, V.H. and Hamilton, A.C., 1994. Centres of plant diversity: a guide andstrategy for their conservation. Volume 1: Europe, Africa, South West Asia and the Middle East.WWF and IUCN, Gland, Switzerland.45 Cameroonian Minister of the Environment and Forests, Summer 2001, personal communication.46 Global Forest Watch, 2001. A first look at logging in Gabon.47 Johnson, S., 2002. Documenting the undocumented. ITTO Tropical Forest Update 12/1, April,pages 6 and 7.48 Friends of the Earth, 1992. Plunder in Ghana’s rainforest for illegal profit: an expose ofcrruption, fraud, and other malpractice in the international timber trade.49 www.cintrafor.org, cited by 55.50 Scotland, N., 2000. Indonesia Country Paper on Illegal Logging. A paper prepared for theWorld Bank-WWF Workshop on Control of Illegal Logging in East Asia, 28 August, Jakarta,Indonesia.51 Down to Earth, No. 24, Jakarta.52 Jakarta Post, 18 February 1994.53 Global Forest Watch, 2002. The state of the forest: Indonesia.54 WWF Malaysia and World Bank, 2001. Overview of forest law enforcement in East Malaysia.55 EIA and Telapak, 2001. Timber Trafficking.
40
56 Glastra, K., 1999. Cut and Run: illegal logging and timber trade in the tropics. InternationalDevelopment Research Centre (IDRC) Ottawa, Canada.57 World Rainforest Movement and Forest Monitor, 1998. High Stakes: The need to controltransnational logging companies: a Malaysian case study.58 Marshall, G, 1990. The Barnett Report: A summary of the report of the Commission of Inquiryinto aspects of the timber industry in Papua New Guinea. Asia Pacific Action Group, Hobart,Tasmania.59 Country Report: Thailand. www.fao.org, accessed 10 May 2002.60 Dudley, N. 1991. The impact of Thailand’s logging ban on deforestation. Forest Workingpaper Number 8, Earth Resources Research, London, cited by 17.61 Bangkok Post, 26 March 1999. Massive kickbacks alleged.62 Global Witness, 2000. Chainsaws speak louder than words.63 Davis, S.D., Heywood, V.H. and Hamilton, A.C. 1995. Centres of Plant Diversity: a guide andstrategy for their conservation. Volume 2: Asia, Australasia and the Pacific. WWF and IUCN,Gland, Switzerland.64 South China Morning Post, 8 November 2000, cited by 55.65 Global Witness, 1999. Made in Vietnam, cut in Cambodia: how the garden furniture trade isdestroying rainforests.66 WWF, 2001. Insight into Europe’s Forest Protection.67 Estonian Green Movement and Friends of the Earth Estonia, 2002. Estimation of the capacityof Estonian illegal forestry activities.68 Alkema, A. 2001. The Northern Dimension: illegal logging in the Baltics and European Russia.A presentation made on behalf of the Taiga Rescue Network, November 2001.69 Latvian State Forest Service, 2001.70 Greenpeace, 2000. Illegal logging in Russia – A Summary of Illegal Forest Felling Activities inRussia. Accessed at greenpeace.org/~forests/resources/forestRussia_july00.htm, April 2002.71 Friends of the Earth, 2000. Plundering Russia’s Far Eastern Taiga: illegal logging, corruptionand trade. Japan.72 Boske, B. 2001. Ecologisation of tax structure in Russia, Russian University, 3, (2) Moscow.73 North-West State Forest Management Enterprise, personal communication to WWF Russia.74 Forests Monitor, 2001. The Wild East: trees in transit. The timber trade between Siberia, theRussian Far East and China.75 WWF, 2002. Illegal logging in the southern part of the Russian Far East: problem analysisand proposed solutions.76 Anderson, M. and Werring, J., 2001. Stumpage sellout. How forest company abuse of thestumpage system is costing B.C. taxpayers millions. Sierra Legal Defence Fund, Vancouver,Canada.77 Sierra Legal Defense Fund and Wildlands League, 1998. Cutting Around the Rules. Vancouver,Canada.
